NFL Asks Musicians for Money to Play Super Bowl Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/n

The NFL - one of the world's biggest money-making conglomerates. Freakin' bastards.

I'm actually getting a bit tired of pro football. The players make too much money; the owners are stingy tyrants; and the league is run by a bunch of good ol' boys that pad each other's pockets.

Now they want to charge an artist a fee? Pay to play, baby!!

Every band in the world - professional, semi-professional, collegiate, High School, etc. should boycott the Stupor Bowl
 
What, the NFL now thinks they are a club on the Sunset Strip?

Pay to play, buy-ins and such are nothing new.
But, huh, no.
 
A big NO. Ridiculous, ....money, money, money.

Personally, I never found the Superbowl appearances of any band all that great from a musical stand point.
 
And that's why Weird Al will not be playing the Super Bowl!
 
I dont know. I mean the NFL is a corporation and the goal of any corporation is to make money. Somebody went to the NFL and said, "hey lets charge the acts for the halftime show." The NFL then went to the management of the artists and got a "Chilly Reception" as the article states. Cant blame a company for trying to make more money, its kind of what they do. Other people are throwing millions of dollars at the NFL for a 30 second commercial. I guarantee the people who market the Super Bowl see the bands at halftime as getting a 10 minute commerical on the NFL's dime.

Ultimately its up to the artists to draw the line. My guess is the artists management will tell the NFL to pack sand and things will go on as they always have.
 
Related to gig discussions I've read here in the past.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/nfl-super-bowl-rihanna-coldplay-katy-perry-20140819

I am stunned rigid. It's like what I understand the UK pub scene is like, just writ large.

Thoughts?

P.S. Coldplay should be charged. [shudder] Ew. I mean...Coldplay. Ew. ;-)

The English pub scene is in the main nothing like that. There are a few places that have dubious practices like this in the larger cities but not that many.

I've played in pubs for 25yrs or so and have never had to pay to play and always been paid more or less what we felt the band was worth. Currently roughly $100 equivalent per night each for 2 45 min sets of classic rock in a 4 piece band is fine by me.

Worth saying that in the UK if you play covers you're more likely to be paid sensibly than if you play originals (where you might only get a share of ticket sales).

As far as the NFL goes that's a difficult call, bands would need to work out whether they'll gain more in record play, sales etc etc than it costs to do.
 
Brilliant, charge the half time entertainment for the honor of playing.? I know, lets charge the teams and the players for being allowed to use the pitch, well they are also part of the entertainment.

Pay to play in British pubs? Not where I live.
 
yep as above, we don't pay to play in the pubs where I am either.

and yep you get more pay and more regular work in a covers band, no one in the uk wants to hear original stuff in a pub on a saturday night
 
I am strongly in favor of Coldplay having to pay to play the Super Bowl.
 
Really, why stop at the musicians? The announcers career is no doubt fortified by working the SuperBowl, they should pay to work too. And the football players. Their career is going to be fortified by playing in a Super Bowl. Then there's the viewers. Make the SuperBowl pay per view. That's where the real money is. What about the footballs? And the Jerseys? And the shoes? What about the helmets? All these people are getting free ads too, are they being asked to pay?

Greed and cheapness disgust me.

Musicians aren't advertising, they are entertaining. You pay to advertise, you get paid to entertain. Is playing music in the SuperBowl an advertisement? If so then playing football in the SuperBowl is an advertisement for each player too, as is the announcing.

Just for once, I'd like to see greed met with a baseball bat to the teeth, just because. Maybe they'd think before going there again.

Earning a buck is one thing, but taking it out of others pocket is greed and I most certainly blame the NFL for even going there.

Musicians are so easy to walk over and I believe we are at fault at the root of everything for laying down.

Money and music...the former poisons the latter to a varying degree. That's why I am happy that I don't depend on my gigs to survive. I think it would sour me eventually.

Color me disgusted.
 
From what I understand (and I may be wrong) being required to pay to play is hardly a new concept. At least in NYC and some other large cities.

As for the NFL? Greed of the highest order.

Oh well.... One more reason why I hate them and all other sports.
 
I'm getting really tired of professional sports in general. This is just another glaring example of why I shouldn't waste my time watching this crap.
 
I'm getting really tired of professional sports in general. This is just another glaring example of why I shouldn't waste my time watching this crap.

Me as well. Complete turn off, and most of the talk is of contracts. Ho hum...did Kobe earn 10 or 15 million this time? Watching junior and college sports can be just as entertaining.

But selling seats at a sports event now is not about common person - corporations and big businesses buy the expensive boxes and seats. The attitude is "who cares if blue-collar Jimmy and his son can afford a game". Sadly, lots of middle and low income people will spend their last dime for loyalty to a team, and that gets manipulated by the almighty owners.
 
Me as well. Complete turn off, and most of the talk is of contracts. Ho hum...did Kobe earn 10 or 15 million this time? Watching junior and college sports can be just as entertaining.

But selling seats at a sports event now is not about common person - corporations and big businesses buy the expensive boxes and seats. The attitude is "who cares if blue-collar Jimmy and his son can afford a game". Sadly, lots of middle and low income people will spend their last dime for loyalty to a team, and that gets manipulated by the almighty owners.

If you want to talk about greed, you probably should speak of College sports as a better option. College football is far more greedy than the NFL.

As for pay to play, find a venue that pays you and not the other way around. If that means you dont get as much publicity, at least you will have a proper business attitude for when you begin to get a following. If you let people roll you from the start you will never get them to stop rolling you and you will always lose.
 
I apologize for possibly misrepresenting the UK pub scene. My memory tells me there were some reports recently on DW of not pay-to-play, but musicians being expected to perform gratis (for the "exposure" and/or so they can make money from CD and merchandise sales), and that such a situation was becoming more and more prevalent.
 
The people that find this ridiculous have no concept of business.

The super bowl is a business and the act is a business.

The super bowl is a bigger draw than ANY performer out there so, who benefits from the half time show?

Major brands pay millions of dollars for a 30 second spot. How much is a 15 minute spot at half time worth?

If an act has new material coming out, they need to get it exposed as much as possible. They could throw $2M on a multi media advertising campaign or they could pay $2M to play at the SB half time show.

Of course I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass. There are highly paid people that do the math on these things. If the company promoting the music sales think they can increase sales by $10M by investing $2M, it's a good decision.
 
The people that find this ridiculous have no concept of business.

I find that comical. I've been a small business owner, consultant, and contractor for the better part of two decades. But do go on. ;-)

The super bowl is a business and the act is a business.

With you so far.

The super bowl is a bigger draw than ANY performer out there so, who benefits from the half time show?

Ultimately, the NFL. That's where all the bucks stop.

Major brands pay millions of dollars for a 30 second spot. How much is a 15 minute spot at half time worth?

The NFL doesn't sell ad time. The network airing the Super Bowl - or simulcasting it overseas, etc. - sells the air time. So while what you're saying is true, it's strictly speaking irrelevant.

If an act has new material coming out, they need to get it exposed as much as possible. They could throw $2M on a multi media advertising campaign or they could pay $2M to play at the SB half time show.

Or they could get paid to add to the spectacle, just as everyone else involved, from the beer vendor to the starting quarterback to the line judge, gets paid.

Professionals get paid to practice their profession, like any other professional involved in making an event into a salable commodity.

Of course I'm just pulling those numbers out of my ass. There are highly paid people that do the math on these things. If the company promoting the music sales think they can increase sales by $10M by investing $2M, it's a good decision.

Which, to turn your initial shot about knowing little about business, shows how little you know about the music business. ;-P The record company isn't paying for the tour, the live shows, none of that. Yes, the tour supports the new album (much of the time), but that's not the record company's lookout.

However, what I'm bitching about, at its core, is that the halftime act is a crucial supporter of the whole shebang, just as much as the players, the officials, the stadium staff, all of that. Might as well start charging the teams who take part. Or the referees. Or, or, or...

Pay to play sets a dangerous precedent for musicians everywhere. That's the point.
 
Back
Top